Tag: civil war

Professor Warns UK Gov’t Is Preparing For Civil War, Using Russian Invasion Threat As Cover

A prominent academic in London has warned that the UK government is actively preparing for the break out of a civil war, but is using the “logically absurd” cover of a Russian invasion to put contingencies in place.

Pointing to remarks made in the 2025 National Security Strategy paper last month, Professor David Betz of King’s College London has suggested that the British government is using the phantom threat of a foreign attack in order to harden critical national infrastructure against sabotage.

“For the first time in many years, we have to actively prepare for the possibility of the UK homeland coming under direct threat,” the Whitehall paper noted, adding that “critical national infrastructure – including undersea cables, energy pipelines, transportation and logistics hubs” are a major target.

During a discussion with Professor Lewis Halsey, Professor Betz, a modern war expert recently stated “there is growing apprehension about the security of Britain, the security of its infrastructure specifically, and about the potential for active conflict at home in a very direct manner, effecting people in a very direct manner.”

“But that’s not external in origin, that’s internal, and that has to do with the way our society is now configured, it is highly fractured,” Betz continued, adding “Low trust, highly fractured, and highly politically factionalised which is leading us increasingly inevitably into civil conflict.”

Betz further outlined how the Russian threat is being amplified as a cover story.

“The fact of the matter is there is a great distance between us and Russia… we are not militarily threatened in a direct way on the ground by any obvious external enemy, even Russia,” Betz outlined.

“Which isn’t to say there aren’t things which Russia could do to attack the UK should they wish to, but one of those is not occupying the village green with Russian soldiers, that simply, frankly, is a rather bizarre assertion,” he contended.

“What they’re concerned about is domestic conflict, and they perfectly understand this, but that’s completely politically toxic for them to say so publicly, hence the convenience of saying ‘we need to develop… a citizen’s militia for the protection of critical infrastructure’,” Betz further noted.

“To say that we’re doing this against the potential of Russian attack, which is frankly a logically absurd proposition, but it is convenient as a pretext,” he emphasised.

Keep reading

Historically Ignorant Chicago Mayor Says Trump is What Country Would Look Like if the Confederacy Had Won the Civil War

If you need further proof that many of our cities and states are being run by first-class morons, look no further than Chicago’s Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson.

While offering some recent comments about the Trump administration and the actions being carried out by ICE, Johnson suggested that this is what the country would look like if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War.

The mayor is apparently unaware that the Confederacy was a creation of members of his party and that the Republican party was founded to end the practice of slavery in the United States. Is he even aware that President Abraham Lincoln and General Ulysses S. Grant were Republicans?

Breitbart News reports:

Chicago Mayor: Trump Is ‘What U.S. Would Have Looked Like if the Confederacy Won’

Chicago’s radical, progressive, Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson told the media on Wednesday that the Trump administration is “what our country would look like had the Confederacy won.”

The race-obsessed, left-wing mayor railed against the Trump administration after hundreds of protesters flooded the streets of the Windy City in opposition to the president’s lawful immigration enforcement policies. Johnson by turns called Trump a “terrorist” and a “racist” in his comments to the press.

The mayor with the single worst approval rating in the entire country also reminded the media that he recently said that Trump’s immigration policy is “what terrorism looks like.”

Earlier, Johnson said, “Federal agents should never be allowed to come into our city and assault elected officials or any Chicagoan. All residents have the right to due process under the Constitution, any action to the contrary is unconscionable,” in a statement after an ICE raid was protested last week.

Keep reading

DOJ invokes Civil War-era law in warning federal agents not to respond to polling places with guns

In recent days, federal law enforcement agents across the government received a jarring communication from the Justice Department: a warning they could be prosecuted under a Civil War-era law if they respond to an election polling place with guns, even for a fake report of a crime.

The memo from Corey R. Amundson, the chief of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section that oversees election crimes, was dated Oct. 15 and states it was prompted by inquiries about how the government might respond to Election Day violence.

It was brought to the attention of Just the News by a senior law enforcement official and confirmed by multiple federal agents, some who said their immediate bosses offered additional guidance.

“In our role overseeing federal prosecutorial efforts against election crime, the Public Integrity Section, through our Election Crimes Branch, has received inquiries about the legality of having armed federal law enforcement agents at polling places,” Amundson wrote. “Given the potential relevance of this issue to federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of Defense. we thought it prudent to bring to your attention Title 18, United States Code, Section 592.”

“This statute — which has been on existence since 1864 — makes it a felony for a federal official to send armed personnel to an operational polling place for crowd control or other purposes,” the memo added.

DOJ officials and retired agents told Just the News similar communications about the Civil War-era law have been sent out in prior elections, but this year’s memo has gotten more attention internally because of a recent Election Day ISIS terror plot that was thwarted a few weeks ago in Oklahoma and more recent fire bombings of ballot collection boxes in the Northwest.

The current memo cautioned agents that bad actors might try to trick agents into an armed respond to a polling place with a false report of violence.

Keep reading

The cost to rename 9 Confederacy-honoring Army bases has doubled

The cost of renaming the nine Army bases that honored the Confederacy has nearly doubled, an Army official told lawmakers Thursday.

The Army expects to pay $39 million, said Lt. Gen. Kevin Vereen, Army deputy chief of staff for installations. In 2022, the congressionally-mandated Naming Commission estimated it would cost $21 million to rename the nine Army installations.

The Defense Department initially gave the Army $1 million to change the names, but “that’s not anywhere close to what we need,” Vereen told members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies.

The renaming involves replacing names not only at the installation gates, but on facilities, streets, numerous smaller signs, and technology, he said.

Service officials have until the end of the year to remove the names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederacy or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederacy.

Garrisons won’t have to foot the bill, Vereen said, nor will they have to pay the costs upfront and then request reimbursement.

“The Army is trying to solve the funding piece, and we’re trying to solve it internally,” he said. “We’ll take the funds from the department.”

Keep reading

‘The USA Inc.?’ Reporter Exposes How America Was Hijacked, Turned Into a Corporation During Civil War

The Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves to see the state of our nation today.

They built a republic where God is above all and where the people, created in His image, are sovereign. The people in turn created their government to serve under them; it was to be small, frugal, and limited—as we would expect our contractor to be. Looking at today’s sprawling administrative state overreach though—with vaccine mandates, endless spending, and leaders who think they are God—something doesn’t jive.

So what happened?

The answer is sequestered but simple: the republic was colonized by commercial law. This obscure fact was swept under the rug and kept shuttered in the dark for over 150 years. Yet, a burgeoning subset of Americans is uncovering this controversial chapter of American history, while also reclaiming their freedom by readjusting their status from “U.S. citizen” to “state national.” The status of state national is both old and new. Now, it denotes one who owes allegiance to the state they inhabit. But it also harks back to what the Founding Fathers envisioned a sovereign people to be.

Today, state nationals have been revealing a hidden history: In short, the British never lost the Revolutionary War; they just deployed corporatocracy. The powers of Europe bid their time: the spat between the Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Anti-Federalists was merely an entrée for a grand usurpation that began during the Civil War. Through legal chicanery, agents of the Crown managed to recast Americans as British subjects lost at sea. America was hijacked by commercial law and became the “United States of America Inc.”

It sounds far-fetched, but one state national, Ann Vandersteel, 55, a reporter and chairwoman of the Zelenko Freedom Foundation, shared her experience after reclaiming her freedom. In 2021, she got a call from former congressional candidate Bobby Lawrence, a state national guru, who laid out said history and supplied her with her freedom bundle, the legal documentation she needed to readjust her status. She dove in and spent a year verifying and cutting through red tape, before emerging a free woman on the other shore. She shared some of her journey with The Epoch Times.

Keep reading

FBI May Have Made Off With $500 Million In Lost Civil War Gold, Treasure Hunter Group Alleges

A group of treasure hunters is suing the Department of Justice over “several tons of buried Civil War-era gold” that they claim the FBI may have found and made off with. The haul was supposedly lost or stolen during the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, according to local lore.

The group is called Finders Keepers – and they they wrote in a court filing last week that the FBI has failed to turn over records on its search for the gold. Previously, these records were said to have included 17 videos, but the government is now claiming only 4 such videos exist. 

The FBI took part in a March 2018 dig at the supposed site of the gold, but claims they came up with nothing.

Anne Weismann, Finders Keepers’ lawyer, told CBS: “This raises the obvious question of whether videotapes were destroyed in the interim.” Weismann is trying to have a court order the FBI to explain the discrepancy in videos. 

Keep reading

‘1619 Project’ Founder Doesn’t Know When The Civil War Happened

The creator of the revisionist ‘1619 Project,’ Nikole Hannah-Jones, who has long argued that pretty much all complex modern issues – from obesity and traffic jams to capitalism itself – is the result of racism being at America’s core, apparently has yet to grasp the simple dates for the Civil War. With the recent release of the much anticipated book formed out of her popular essay series, The 1619 Project: A New Origin Story, academics and educators have hailed it as laying the groundwork for upending and transforming the way the United States’ foundational story of its beginnings as a nation is told, even down to impacting how elementary school teachers present America’s founders to school children.

The book assures us that “the inheritance of 1619” – that is slavery, racism and social injustice – “reaches into every part of contemporary American society, from politics, music, diet, traffic, and citizenship to capitalism, religion, and our democracy itself.” Given her outsized influence as a New York Times writer, and now that she’s being held up in mainstream media and even establishment academia as an ‘expert’ on American history, it’s not too comforting to know that she doesn’t know the basic dates for the Civil War.

“…until 1865, when the North was reluctantly drawn into a war that ultimately ended slavery.” The woefully misinformed and ignorant of basic facts response which claimed the Civil War began in 1865 came during a Monday Twitter spat with William Hogeland, who himself is a widely published author of United States history.

A number of commenters were quick to point out in the wake of Hannah-Jones getting a basic fact which is taught to school children across the country wrong that the error is inexcusable. “Why would we expect you to know the correct year,” one quipped sarcastically.

Keep reading

Biden’s Defense Secretary Honors Transgender Individuals for Serving in the Civil War, Revolutionary War

Biden Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin performed some pathetic pandering to the LGBT community during “Pride Month.” He actually implied that transgenders fought in the Civil and Revolutionary Wars.

“Throughout American history, LGBTQ+ citizens have fought to defend our rights and our freedoms, from the founding of our nation to the civil war, from the trenches of two world wars, to Korea and Vietnam, and from Afghanistan to Iraq,” Austin said, celebrating the enduring American values of sodomy and endless war.

“They fought for our country even when our country wouldn’t fight for them. And even as some were forced to hide who they were or to hang up their uniforms,” he continued.

“And today we reaffirm that transgender rights are human rights, and America is safer and better when every qualified citizen can serve with pride and with dignity. Now that’s real progress,” Austin added.

Keep reading

Demolishing the Lincoln Myth, Yet Again

Extension of slavery in the territories was for Lincoln an entirely different matter, and on this issue he refused all compromise. Here we confront a paradox. If Lincoln thought it more important to preserve the Union than to oppose slavery, why was he unwilling to compromise over slavery in the territories? If he thought slavery’s extension was too high a price to pay to preserve the Union, why was he willing permanently to entrench slavery wherever it already existed? It is hard to detect a moral difference between slavery in the states and the territories.

DiLorenzo readily resolves the paradox. Lincoln opposed extension of slavery, because this would interfere with the prospects of white workers. Lincoln, following his mentor Henry Clay, favored a nationalist economic program of which high tariffs, a national bank, and governmentally financed “internal improvements” were key elements. This program, he thought, would promote not only the interests of the wealthy industrial and financial powers that he always faithfully served but would benefit white labor as well. Blacks, in his opinion, would be better off outside the United States, and throughout his life Lincoln supported schemes for repatriation of blacks to Africa and elsewhere. If blacks left the country, they could not compete with whites, the primary objects of Lincoln’s concern. (Lincoln, by the way, did not see this program as in any way in contradiction to his professed belief that all men are created equal. Blacks, he thought, had human rights but not political rights.)

Keep reading